Author
Topic: Andy Roddick (Read 6077 times)

As he arrives this week in Shanghai for the season-ending Tennis Masters Cup, Andy Roddick might well take heed of an ancient Chinese proverb: May you live in interesting times.

While some view these words as a blessing, others regard them as a curse. For the 25-year-old Roddick, a former World No. 1 seeking yet more Grand Slam glory and a return to tennis' pinnacle, the challenge of sorting out the positive from the negative will likely define the balance of his career. Well aware of this, Roddick is determined to face whatever comes his way. "I'm not going to run and hide because I'm catching some heat," he says. "I'm not going to stay at home and pout."

In the fast-paced world of contemporary tennis, the depth and variety of the ATP tour makes life increasingly competitive for the ambitious Roddick. While Roger Federer's dominance sets the tune, Roddick also must grapple with stellar competitors Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, as well as such rough customers as Nikolay Davydenko, David Ferrer and a host of peers boasting an exceptionally wide range of skills.

"It's an incredible period in tennis for a man like Roddick," says ESPN analyst Cliff Drysdale. "He's living with the greatest player who ever held a racquet in Federer, and the greatest who ever played on clay in Nadal. It's a remarkable era we're in right now."

So where does Roddick fit in? In large part, he stands at the crossroads. Consistent enough to have qualified for this event for the fifth straight year, Roddick now is very much a rebuilt work in progress. After all, it was less than 18 months ago that he tumbled out of Wimbledon in the third round, looking exceptionally passive in losing to Andy Murray and briefly falling out of the Top 10.

Shortly after that, Roddick began working with the legendary Jimmy Connors. It has been a unique partnership. Most coach-player relationships revolve around the coach learning to see the world through the player's eyes and then subtly providing guidance.

Roddick and Connors have turned that on its head. The implicit message of having someone like Connors in his corner is this simple: Andy, you must see the world through my eyes.

As U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe says, "Jimmy made every shot count. He knew so much about weight transfer, about driving your legs through the ball, about court positioning. You could see all of this making an impact on Andy's game very quickly. Were there other people who knew these things? Probably. But maybe it took someone who's done more than Andy has to get him to listen."

Roddick's run to the 2006 U.S. Open final final less than two months after he started with Connors validated that the partnership could work. And a year ago here in Shanghai he held match points against Federer.

But 2007 has been beguiling -- or, perhaps, merely a campaign built on transition and refinement. This year Roddick has earned but two titles, has a 3-5 match record against fellow Top 10 players and failed to reach a Grand Slam final for the first time since 2002. And beyond these mere facts, even Roddick admitted that his loss from two sets to love and 4-2 up in the third set in the Wimbledon quarterfinals versus Richard Gasquet will haunt him for some time.

But there have also been encouraging signs. Roddick beat rough customers Mario Ancic and Marat Safin on his way to the Australian Open semifinals. There he lost to Federer in a match that surely ranks as one of the Swiss' finest displays.

At the end of the 2007 Grand Slam season, Roddick played excellent tennis to make it to the last eight of the U.S. Open, where once again he encountered Federer. Throwing himself mightily into the first two sets, Roddick lost each in tie-breaks before going down in the third 6-2. As ESPN analyst Mary Carillo said, "He'd have beaten anyone else that night." Says Roddick, "It's frustrating. I'm just getting stuck against the guy who's staking his claim to being the best ever. You think about that sometimes -- that you're getting better, but so is he."

Roddick figures to bring his all to Shanghai. Having only played one tournament match since the U.S. Open, he might well be less tournament tough than desired, but he's also rested, hungry and well aware that both this event and another at month's end are exceptionally important.

Shortly after the Tennis Masters Cup's conclusion, Roddick will head to Portland, Oregon to prepare for the Davis Cup final - a competition he takes even more seriously than the Grand Slams.

Fifteen years ago, the 10-year-old Roddick attended the Davis Cup final when it was held in Fort Worth, Texas. Seeing big-time tennis up close only motivated him further. Now, with the U.S. hosting the final for the first time since that 1992 tie, Roddick is eager to bring the precious cup back to American soil after a 12-year exile. "He's been our leader for so many years," says McEnroe. "I think he can taste it."

Yet driven as Roddick is, he's aware that earning a living as a tennis pro is rare and odd. "Being famous never feels normal," he says. "I don't know if it will ever become normal." But he also recognizes that his wealth and fame can do more than get him a big TV to watch his beloved Nebraska Cornhuskers, a good seat at Miami Heat games or create friendships with the likes of his fellow Austin, Texas resident, Lance Armstrong.

"When I first turned pro I had all these questions I would ask guys constantly," says Roddick. "One thing I did was ask Andre [Agassi] what he regretted. Of course I figured he'd say something about tennis, but instead he said he wished he'd started his foundation even earlier." From the get-go, the Andy Roddick Foundation has been one of his major priorities. Roddick's own events and those he participates in raise millions for children that are abused, neglected, at risk and with catastrophic illnesses.

For all that perspective, though, Roddick knows he must press forward and continue working on his game, whether it be sharpening his backhand or improving his transition game. "I like how much he's working to overcome his limitations," says Drysdale. "He's always battling, always committed."

Never was Roddick's spirit more vivid than in the wake of his loss to Federer at the U.S. Open. True to the feisty manner of Connors, Roddick came away from that effort with a spectrum of feelings. On the one hand, he was bitterly disappointed, to the point where his profanity lit up the locker room immediately afterwards. On the other, Roddick was aware that he had fulfilled tennis' most important mission: giving everything he had. "I'm not walking off with any questions in my head this time. I'm not walking with my head down. I played my ass off out there tonight. I played the right way."

What the future holds for Andy Roddick is uncertain. What's crystal clear is that he'll leave nothing on the table. If Roddick has his way, the times will indeed get even more interesting. A man this restless wouldn't have it any other way.

Interesting article. I wish Joel Drucker would have told us this was coming. But Andy's comment is interesting. I think that if Andy only wins 1 more slam (or no more slams), Federer will haunt him. To me, there really is nothing more he can do. He's going to retire with the what-ifs, in fact this whole generation is too, and that makes me sad.

As he arrives this week in Shanghai for the season-ending Tennis Masters Cup, Andy Roddick might well take heed of an ancient Chinese proverb: May you live in interesting times.

While some view these words as a blessing, others regard them as a curse. For the 25-year-old Roddick, a former World No. 1 seeking yet more Grand Slam glory and a return to tennis' pinnacle, the challenge of sorting out the positive from the negative will likely define the balance of his career. Well aware of this, Roddick is determined to face whatever comes his way. "I'm not going to run and hide because I'm catching some heat," he says. "I'm not going to stay at home and pout."

In the fast-paced world of contemporary tennis, the depth and variety of the ATP tour makes life increasingly competitive for the ambitious Roddick. While Roger Federer's dominance sets the tune, Roddick also must grapple with stellar competitors Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, as well as such rough customers as Nikolay Davydenko, David Ferrer and a host of peers boasting an exceptionally wide range of skills.

"It's an incredible period in tennis for a man like Roddick," says ESPN analyst Cliff Drysdale. "He's living with the greatest player who ever held a racquet in Federer, and the greatest who ever played on clay in Nadal. It's a remarkable era we're in right now."

So where does Roddick fit in? In large part, he stands at the crossroads. Consistent enough to have qualified for this event for the fifth straight year, Roddick now is very much a rebuilt work in progress. After all, it was less than 18 months ago that he tumbled out of Wimbledon in the third round, looking exceptionally passive in losing to Andy Murray and briefly falling out of the Top 10.

Shortly after that, Roddick began working with the legendary Jimmy Connors. It has been a unique partnership. Most coach-player relationships revolve around the coach learning to see the world through the player's eyes and then subtly providing guidance.

Roddick and Connors have turned that on its head. The implicit message of having someone like Connors in his corner is this simple: Andy, you must see the world through my eyes.

As U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe says, "Jimmy made every shot count. He knew so much about weight transfer, about driving your legs through the ball, about court positioning. You could see all of this making an impact on Andy's game very quickly. Were there other people who knew these things? Probably. But maybe it took someone who's done more than Andy has to get him to listen."

Roddick's run to the 2006 U.S. Open final final less than two months after he started with Connors validated that the partnership could work. And a year ago here in Shanghai he held match points against Federer.

But 2007 has been beguiling -- or, perhaps, merely a campaign built on transition and refinement. This year Roddick has earned but two titles, has a 3-5 match record against fellow Top 10 players and failed to reach a Grand Slam final for the first time since 2002. And beyond these mere facts, even Roddick admitted that his loss from two sets to love and 4-2 up in the third set in the Wimbledon quarterfinals versus Richard Gasquet will haunt him for some time.

But there have also been encouraging signs. Roddick beat rough customers Mario Ancic and Marat Safin on his way to the Australian Open semifinals. There he lost to Federer in a match that surely ranks as one of the Swiss' finest displays.

At the end of the 2007 Grand Slam season, Roddick played excellent tennis to make it to the last eight of the U.S. Open, where once again he encountered Federer. Throwing himself mightily into the first two sets, Roddick lost each in tie-breaks before going down in the third 6-2. As ESPN analyst Mary Carillo said, "He'd have beaten anyone else that night." Says Roddick, "It's frustrating. I'm just getting stuck against the guy who's staking his claim to being the best ever. You think about that sometimes -- that you're getting better, but so is he."

Roddick figures to bring his all to Shanghai. Having only played one tournament match since the U.S. Open, he might well be less tournament tough than desired, but he's also rested, hungry and well aware that both this event and another at month's end are exceptionally important.

Shortly after the Tennis Masters Cup's conclusion, Roddick will head to Portland, Oregon to prepare for the Davis Cup final - a competition he takes even more seriously than the Grand Slams.

Fifteen years ago, the 10-year-old Roddick attended the Davis Cup final when it was held in Fort Worth, Texas. Seeing big-time tennis up close only motivated him further. Now, with the U.S. hosting the final for the first time since that 1992 tie, Roddick is eager to bring the precious cup back to American soil after a 12-year exile. "He's been our leader for so many years," says McEnroe. "I think he can taste it."

Yet driven as Roddick is, he's aware that earning a living as a tennis pro is rare and odd. "Being famous never feels normal," he says. "I don't know if it will ever become normal." But he also recognizes that his wealth and fame can do more than get him a big TV to watch his beloved Nebraska Cornhuskers, a good seat at Miami Heat games or create friendships with the likes of his fellow Austin, Texas resident, Lance Armstrong.

"When I first turned pro I had all these questions I would ask guys constantly," says Roddick. "One thing I did was ask Andre [Agassi] what he regretted. Of course I figured he'd say something about tennis, but instead he said he wished he'd started his foundation even earlier." From the get-go, the Andy Roddick Foundation has been one of his major priorities. Roddick's own events and those he participates in raise millions for children that are abused, neglected, at risk and with catastrophic illnesses.

For all that perspective, though, Roddick knows he must press forward and continue working on his game, whether it be sharpening his backhand or improving his transition game. "I like how much he's working to overcome his limitations," says Drysdale. "He's always battling, always committed."

Never was Roddick's spirit more vivid than in the wake of his loss to Federer at the U.S. Open. True to the feisty manner of Connors, Roddick came away from that effort with a spectrum of feelings. On the one hand, he was bitterly disappointed, to the point where his profanity lit up the locker room immediately afterwards. On the other, Roddick was aware that he had fulfilled tennis' most important mission: giving everything he had. "I'm not walking off with any questions in my head this time. I'm not walking with my head down. I played my ass off out there tonight. I played the right way."

What the future holds for Andy Roddick is uncertain. What's crystal clear is that he'll leave nothing on the table. If Roddick has his way, the times will indeed get even more interesting. A man this restless wouldn't have it any other way.

Interesting article. I wish Joel Drucker would have told us this was coming. But Andy's comment is interesting. I think that if Andy only wins 1 more slam (or no more slams), Federer will haunt him. To me, there really is nothing more he can do. He's going to retire with the what-ifs, in fact this whole generation is too, and that makes me sad.

it wasnt fed who ran him off the court at indian wells. fed was no where near when dancevic beat him in a final of hard court tournament. ferru took him out in cincy and not federer. aging 35 year old shrimp by the name of santoro took him out in lyons, france not fed. he was not in the tournament.

who is he kidding anyway? secondly, he has been running. he ran from madrid, basel, and paris. 2 of these events are supposed to be required.

federer is just an excuse. he has failed to improve his game and while some of the others are catching up. now he has not just fed but a numbers of other players to worry about.

i hate to say it but roddick is making excuses. mahut had a match point against him in queens and should have won. he had no business losing to gasquet at wimby aftr being up by 2 sets to love.

if he cant win small tournaments with no fed around, how does he ever hope to win a slam. the short answer is that he does not expect to ever win another slam. i think he will drop out of top 10 in a few months.

it wasnt fed who ran him off the court at indian wells. fed was no where near when dancevic beat him in a final of hard court tournament. ferru took him out in cincy and not federer. aging 35 year old shrimp by the name of santoro took him out in lyons, france not fed. he was not in the tournament.

who is he kidding anyway? secondly, he has been running. he ran from madrid, basel, and paris. 2 of these events are supposed to be required.

federer is just an excuse. he has failed to improve his game and while some of the others are catching up. now he has not just fed but a numbers of other players to worry about.

i hate to say it but roddick is making excuses. mahut had a match point against him in queens and should have won. he had no business losing to gasquet at wimby aftr being up by 2 sets to love.

if he cant win small tournaments with no fed around, how does he ever hope to win a slam. the short answer is that he does not expect to ever win another slam. i think he will drop out of top 10 in a few months.

Does that mean he didn't deserve the win? Was he just lucky to get through it? Did Federer deserve that win against Andy in Shanghai last year because Andy was leading 6-4 and 7-6 in that 2nd set? Was Federer lucky?

it wasnt fed who ran him off the court at indian wells. fed was no where near when dancevic beat him in a final of hard court tournament. ferru took him out in cincy and not federer. aging 35 year old shrimp by the name of santoro took him out in lyons, france not fed. he was not in the tournament.

who is he kidding anyway? secondly, he has been running. he ran from madrid, basel, and paris. 2 of these events are supposed to be required.

federer is just an excuse. he has failed to improve his game and while some of the others are catching up. now he has not just fed but a numbers of other players to worry about.

i hate to say it but roddick is making excuses. mahut had a match point against him in queens and should have won. he had no business losing to gasquet at wimby aftr being up by 2 sets to love.

if he cant win small tournaments with no fed around, how does he ever hope to win a slam. the short answer is that he does not expect to ever win another slam. i think he will drop out of top 10 in a few months.

Does that mean he didn't deserve the win? Was he just lucky to get through it? Did Federer deserve that win against Andy in Shanghai last year because Andy was leading 6-4 and 7-6 in that 2nd set? Was Federer lucky?

i am just saying that it looks like he is making excuses. fed is not his problem. his failure to improve his one dimensional game is the problem. even johhny mac has said this a number of times. this is the guy who was boasting about needing to only practice 1/2 hour a day before connors came on the scene.

well fed practices about 4 hours a day and he doesnt have a coach. i will be very happy if andy can win in shanghai and get a win or 2 over roger but with his game, there is little or no chance.

it wasnt fed who ran him off the court at indian wells. fed was no where near when dancevic beat him in a final of hard court tournament. ferru took him out in cincy and not federer. aging 35 year old shrimp by the name of santoro took him out in lyons, france not fed. he was not in the tournament.

who is he kidding anyway? secondly, he has been running. he ran from madrid, basel, and paris. 2 of these events are supposed to be required.

federer is just an excuse. he has failed to improve his game and while some of the others are catching up. now he has not just fed but a numbers of other players to worry about.

i hate to say it but roddick is making excuses. mahut had a match point against him in queens and should have won. he had no business losing to gasquet at wimby aftr being up by 2 sets to love.

if he cant win small tournaments with no fed around, how does he ever hope to win a slam. the short answer is that he does not expect to ever win another slam. i think he will drop out of top 10 in a few months.

Does that mean he didn't deserve the win? Was he just lucky to get through it? Did Federer deserve that win against Andy in Shanghai last year because Andy was leading 6-4 and 7-6 in that 2nd set? Was Federer lucky?

i am just saying that it looks like he is making excuses. fed is not his problem. his failure to improve his one dimensional game is the problem. even johhny mac has said this a number of times. this is the guy who was boasting about needing to only practice 1/2 hour a day before connors came on the scene.

well fed practices about 4 hours a day and he doesnt have a coach. i will be very happy if andy can win in shanghai and get a win or 2 over roger but with his game, there is little or no chance.

I just watched this video. It's highlights from the only win Andy has had over Federer, 2003 TMS Canada semis. Andy's forehands were massive and huge!! Since I've been following tennis (Wimbledon 05), the only time I've seen that was at the USO this year. Just look at the winners he hits at 0:08, 0:30, 0:47... in fact it's the whole 5 minute video. So obviously, his forehand has regressed. But look at his court position. He's at least his own height behind the baseline. But then I look at highlights from last year's Shanghai, he's got good court positioning, standing on the basline or no more than 3 feet behind it, even pushing Fed back sometimes. Then I look at the third set and he's playing his entire height behind the baseline... just getting pushed side to side and farther back. If played like he did at the USO more often, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I cant see Andy ever beating Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal in the future to be honest. Those guys can read his serve, which despite its power is still easier to return then say Karlovic's serve; and those guys can all easily outhit or outrun him from the baseline. His transition game to the net, and actually ability to cover and volley is not good enough vs the passing game of those guys. He also does not return well enough to effectively return any of their serves, even Nadal's serve is tough for him to return well as we saw in the Pacific Life semis. His overall game just isnt good enough to be any better then he is now. I am sorry, that is just the way it is.

Also I dont agree he doesnt work on getting better, I think he does, he has pushed to the boundaries of his potential talent, and unfortunately many of the American "experts" including guys like Johnny Mac had an inflated idea of what that potential talent was in the first place, which is why they give him a hard time. The 3 I mentioned are just much more naturally talented all around players then he is, and there are a couple more coming up.

I cant see Andy ever beating Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal in the future to be honest. Those guys can read his serve, which despite its power is still easier to return then say Karlovic's serve; and those guys can all easily outhit or outrun him from the baseline. His transition game to the net, and actually ability to cover and volley is not good enough vs the passing game of those guys. He also does not return well enough to effectively return any of their serves, even Nadal's serve is tough for him to return well as we saw in the Pacific Life semis. His overall game just isnt good enough to be any better then he is now. I am sorry, that is just the way it is.

Also I dont agree he doesnt work on getting better, I think he does, he has pushed to the boundaries of his potential talent, and unfortunately many of the American "experts" including guys like Johnny Mac had an inflated idea of what that potential talent was in the first place, which is why they give him a hard time. The 3 I mentioned are just much more naturally talented all around players then he is, and there are a couple more coming up.

Federer, maybe. Rafa and Djokovic are beatable. Looking at those wins over Andy thie year don't help my case. But Rafa was serving at over 81% first serves!! Not even the best returner can't beat that, which didn't help Andy because he's not the best returner. Djokovic went on to beat Nadal and Federer in the same tournament so obviously, even the world's top 2 couldn't touch him. Before saying Andy can't ever beat them again, let's see them play again, and then make a prediction. I won't believe your prediction anyway kittens because last year you claimed Sharapova would retire with just that one Wimbledon.

it wasnt fed who ran him off the court at indian wells. fed was no where near when dancevic beat him in a final of hard court tournament. ferru took him out in cincy and not federer. aging 35 year old shrimp by the name of santoro took him out in lyons, france not fed. he was not in the tournament.

who is he kidding anyway? secondly, he has been running. he ran from madrid, basel, and paris. 2 of these events are supposed to be required.

federer is just an excuse. he has failed to improve his game and while some of the others are catching up. now he has not just fed but a numbers of other players to worry about.

i hate to say it but roddick is making excuses. mahut had a match point against him in queens and should have won. he had no business losing to gasquet at wimby aftr being up by 2 sets to love.

if he cant win small tournaments with no fed around, how does he ever hope to win a slam. the short answer is that he does not expect to ever win another slam. i think he will drop out of top 10 in a few months.

Well.. you don't think thats a little exaggerated? so Davydenko's out the top20 by next year end and Roddick is out of the top10. What else.. Oh Nadal won't win any more grandslams, actually he won't even win any more matches cuz his knee's just going to fall apart one day and his serve's going to be worse than mine since it already is worse than the top100.

Ok I agree that skipping all these tournaments after USO and using some silly excuse ( think injury?) is a little questionable. And yeah its the first DC tie but like spending the whole second half of the year pretty much preparing for it which in the end really depends on who's playing better that day anyway because they are all world class players (its russia isn't it? so like if its Safin playing, regardless of how much andy prepares, if Safin plays well Andy's screwed and if he plays bad, Andy wins no matter how he is playing .. something like that.) But in the end you gotta give it to him when he plays he does try to put everything. He doesn't tank matches. Especially against Federer, I think if he hasn't like pretty much given up by now and still plays his best against Federer instead of taking the approach most people take which is basically 'If I can go till I meet fed its good enough' ... kudos to him. And looking back. From last USO lets say. He got to the USO final very nicely and pushed Fed for two sets. Very good. Held two match points against Fed in Shanghai but still lost and he beat Ljubcic. Very Good again, kinda bad that he lost after 2 mps but no loss of respect there. This year, Played amazing tennis to take out Safin AND Ancic and met Fed in the SFs of AO. That itself very good, then Fed just had an amazing day and he destroyed Andy. Oh well. Lost to I think Haas in Memphis(final), Murray in San Jose(sf) and Miami( QF - retired), and Nadal(semis) in Indian wells. Lets skip clay (ok this is a fault of all americans and american tennis in general so no particular blame on Andy - if he has some misconception that he can follow Pete and become a great man by screwing clay then somethign should be done but in this discussion, no use). Beat Mahut - who was again playing really well, and yeah Mahut should have won cuz that matchpoint he lost was a stupid point but Andy stuck through and won, and a win is a win. QF in Wimbledon losing to Gasquet who, safe to assume, hit a hot streak being down a break in the third set and just played amazing tennis. Lost to Dancevic in Indianapolis (semis) - Dancevic was playing some good tennis here wasn't he? He was the one with the hot streak around here. but bad loss nevertheless.beat Isner to take another small title. Lost to Djokovic in Montreal. lost to Ferrer in Cincinatti - bad loss, no business losing to Ferrer, although you can say again Ferrer hit a hot streak here. Lost to Fed tough match in USO. Then Santoro.

So overall, there's no shame in losing to Federer - and he has lost to him in 2/4 make that 2/3 of the ones that matter to Andy. He shouldn't be losing to Gasquet and Murray and Haas but admit it, he's no Federer to be winning all the matches all the time. He's "supposed" to have some losses, and Gasquet Murray Haas and Djokovic - IMO no shame losing to them. Maybe a little after being a break up in the third set in Wimby against Gasquet but no shame nevertheless. Then he loses to Ferrer and Dancevic and Santoro. These are the only ones I consider his shamefull loses as he should have won but didn't. But then again, I know this is no justification of course, but Ferrer and Dancevic did get on a streak there and Santoro is always a tricky customer to anyone and everyone. So overall 14 losses and QFs in two slams and a SF in the third and a world ranking of 5? I don't see anyhting bad about that. He just didn't live up to the hype of the next superstar... thats the only place he has let down. For his talent and his game.. what he has done I think is amazing and he's yet another very solid tennis player, just not good enough to challenge Fed, Nadal but a very very solid tennis player with an excellent record nevertheless.

I cant see Andy ever beating Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal in the future to be honest. Those guys can read his serve, which despite its power is still easier to return then say Karlovic's serve; and those guys can all easily outhit or outrun him from the baseline. His transition game to the net, and actually ability to cover and volley is not good enough vs the passing game of those guys. He also does not return well enough to effectively return any of their serves, even Nadal's serve is tough for him to return well as we saw in the Pacific Life semis. His overall game just isnt good enough to be any better then he is now. I am sorry, that is just the way it is.

Also I dont agree he doesnt work on getting better, I think he does, he has pushed to the boundaries of his potential talent, and unfortunately many of the American "experts" including guys like Johnny Mac had an inflated idea of what that potential talent was in the first place, which is why they give him a hard time. The 3 I mentioned are just much more naturally talented all around players then he is, and there are a couple more coming up.

Federer, maybe. Rafa and Djokovic are beatable. Looking at those wins over Andy thie year don't help my case. But Rafa was serving at over 81% first serves!! Not even the best returner can't beat that, which didn't help Andy because he's not the best returner. Djokovic went on to beat Nadal and Federer in the same tournament so obviously, even the world's top 2 couldn't touch him. Before saying Andy can't ever beat them again, let's see them play again, and then make a prediction. I won't believe your prediction anyway kittens because last year you claimed Sharapova would retire with just that one Wimbledon.

Rafa has a pretty good serve and much better then some give him credit for, but it isnt an amazing serve all the same. Just because Roddick couldnt return his serve at 81% first serves in doesnt mean nobody could, like you yourself said Roddick is far from the best returner. You would think you were talking about Ivo Karlovic's serve, now if he were serving at 81% I would agree with you.

Djokovic did go on to beat Nadal and Federer after beating Roddick, but Federer had all kinds of chances to win in the final, Fed didnt even play all that well and if he hadnt choked away FIVE set points he still would have won the final over Djokovic 7-5, 6-2 not playing his best so I wouldnt say Djokovic was untouchable that tournament. The fact though is Nadal and Federer did lose to him there, but they have beaten Djokovic other times this year, including on hard courts, Roddick has not proven he can beat a player of that calibre a long time.

Yeah Sharapova did get another slam, but it is looking increasingly likely she might not ever get another. More likely she is going to end up closer to a career that her detractors like myself forecasted for her, then those who believed she was ever going to become a dominant player.

it wasnt fed who ran him off the court at indian wells. fed was no where near when dancevic beat him in a final of hard court tournament. ferru took him out in cincy and not federer. aging 35 year old shrimp by the name of santoro took him out in lyons, france not fed. he was not in the tournament.

who is he kidding anyway? secondly, he has been running. he ran from madrid, basel, and paris. 2 of these events are supposed to be required.

federer is just an excuse. he has failed to improve his game and while some of the others are catching up. now he has not just fed but a numbers of other players to worry about.

i hate to say it but roddick is making excuses. mahut had a match point against him in queens and should have won. he had no business losing to gasquet at wimby aftr being up by 2 sets to love.

if he cant win small tournaments with no fed around, how does he ever hope to win a slam. the short answer is that he does not expect to ever win another slam. i think he will drop out of top 10 in a few months.

Well.. you don't think thats a little exaggerated? so Davydenko's out the top20 by next year end and Roddick is out of the top10. What else.. Oh Nadal won't win any more grandslams, actually he won't even win any more matches cuz his knee's just going to fall apart one day and his serve's going to be worse than mine since it already is worse than the top100.

Ok I agree that skipping all these tournaments after USO and using some silly excuse ( think injury?) is a little questionable. And yeah its the first DC tie but like spending the whole second half of the year pretty much preparing for it which in the end really depends on who's playing better that day anyway because they are all world class players (its russia isn't it? so like if its Safin playing, regardless of how much andy prepares, if Safin plays well Andy's screwed and if he plays bad, Andy wins no matter how he is playing .. something like that.) But in the end you gotta give it to him when he plays he does try to put everything. He doesn't tank matches. Especially against Federer, I think if he hasn't like pretty much given up by now and still plays his best against Federer instead of taking the approach most people take which is basically 'If I can go till I meet fed its good enough' ... kudos to him. And looking back. From last USO lets say. He got to the USO final very nicely and pushed Fed for two sets. Very good. Held two match points against Fed in Shanghai but still lost and he beat Ljubcic. Very Good again, kinda bad that he lost after 2 mps but no loss of respect there. This year, Played amazing tennis to take out Safin AND Ancic and met Fed in the SFs of AO. That itself very good, then Fed just had an amazing day and he destroyed Andy. Oh well. Lost to I think Haas in Memphis(final), Murray in San Jose(sf) and Miami( QF - retired), and Nadal(semis) in Indian wells. Lets skip clay (ok this is a fault of all americans and american tennis in general so no particular blame on Andy - if he has some misconception that he can follow Pete and become a great man by screwing clay then somethign should be done but in this discussion, no use). Beat Mahut - who was again playing really well, and yeah Mahut should have won cuz that matchpoint he lost was a stupid point but Andy stuck through and won, and a win is a win. QF in Wimbledon losing to Gasquet who, safe to assume, hit a hot streak being down a break in the third set and just played amazing tennis. Lost to Dancevic in Indianapolis (semis) - Dancevic was playing some good tennis here wasn't he? He was the one with the hot streak around here. but bad loss nevertheless.beat Isner to take another small title. Lost to Djokovic in Montreal. lost to Ferrer in Cincinatti - bad loss, no business losing to Ferrer, although you can say again Ferrer hit a hot streak here. Lost to Fed tough match in USO. Then Santoro.

So overall, there's no shame in losing to Federer - and he has lost to him in 2/4 make that 2/3 of the ones that matter to Andy. He shouldn't be losing to Gasquet and Murray and Haas but admit it, he's no Federer to be winning all the matches all the time. He's "supposed" to have some losses, and Gasquet Murray Haas and Djokovic - IMO no shame losing to them. Maybe a little after being a break up in the third set in Wimby against Gasquet but no shame nevertheless. Then he loses to Ferrer and Dancevic and Santoro. These are the only ones I consider his shamefull loses as he should have won but didn't. But then again, I know this is no justification of course, but Ferrer and Dancevic did get on a streak there and Santoro is always a tricky customer to anyone and everyone. So overall 14 losses and QFs in two slams and a SF in the third and a world ranking of 5? I don't see anyhting bad about that. He just didn't live up to the hype of the next superstar... thats the only place he has let down. For his talent and his game.. what he has done I think is amazing and he's yet another very solid tennis player, just not good enough to challenge Fed, Nadal but a very very solid tennis player with an excellent record nevertheless.

Good points made! Let's not forget that all players have bad losses. Federer lost to Volandri. I mean come on, Volandri... in straights!! He lost to a top 60 Canas two weeks in a row! He was lucky to beat Rafa at Wimbledon. He got outclassed by Nalbandian two MS in a row.

Now let's look at Rafa. He's lost to Xavier Malisse. When's the last time he's won a match? Gonzo convincingly beat him at the AO, and he's been reduced to 4 games or less per match against Nalbandian.

Now Novak. He's lost to Giorgi Chantouria (okay, he retired, but it's still a loss ), a top 50 Clement, Victor Troicki, Nalbandian, and Santoro.

What am I babbling on about? i'm not exactly sure, but no one is unbeatable, and player's careers shouldn't be doomed because they lose to players they shouldn't. When you're a top 5 player, there's a better chance you're going to lose more often to lower ranked players than higher ranked players. It's just logical. In fact, Federer ALWAYS loses to lower ranked players. What's up with that?

I cant see Andy ever beating Federer, Djokovic, or Nadal in the future to be honest. Those guys can read his serve, which despite its power is still easier to return then say Karlovic's serve; and those guys can all easily outhit or outrun him from the baseline. His transition game to the net, and actually ability to cover and volley is not good enough vs the passing game of those guys. He also does not return well enough to effectively return any of their serves, even Nadal's serve is tough for him to return well as we saw in the Pacific Life semis. His overall game just isnt good enough to be any better then he is now. I am sorry, that is just the way it is.

Also I dont agree he doesnt work on getting better, I think he does, he has pushed to the boundaries of his potential talent, and unfortunately many of the American "experts" including guys like Johnny Mac had an inflated idea of what that potential talent was in the first place, which is why they give him a hard time. The 3 I mentioned are just much more naturally talented all around players then he is, and there are a couple more coming up.

Federer, maybe. Rafa and Djokovic are beatable. Looking at those wins over Andy thie year don't help my case. But Rafa was serving at over 81% first serves!! Not even the best returner can't beat that, which didn't help Andy because he's not the best returner. Djokovic went on to beat Nadal and Federer in the same tournament so obviously, even the world's top 2 couldn't touch him. Before saying Andy can't ever beat them again, let's see them play again, and then make a prediction. I won't believe your prediction anyway kittens because last year you claimed Sharapova would retire with just that one Wimbledon.

Rafa has a pretty good serve and much better then some give him credit for, but it isnt an amazing serve all the same. Just because Roddick couldnt return his serve at 81% first serves in doesnt mean nobody could, like you yourself said Roddick is far from the best returner. You would think you were talking about Ivo Karlovic's serve, now if he were serving at 81% I would agree with you.

Djokovic did go on to beat Nadal and Federer after beating Roddick, but Federer had all kinds of chances to win in the final, Fed didnt even play all that well and if he hadnt choked away FIVE set points he still would have won the final over Djokovic 7-5, 6-2 not playing his best so I wouldnt say Djokovic was untouchable that tournament. The fact though is Nadal and Federer did lose to him there, but they have beaten Djokovic other times this year, including on hard courts, Roddick has not proven he can beat a player of that calibre a long time.Yeah Sharapova did get another slam, but it is looking increasingly likely she might not ever get another. More likely she is going to end up closer to a career that her detractors like myself forecasted for her, then those who believed she was ever going to become a dominant player.

But that was their first match. Any player needs to learn how to beat his opponent. It's taken Federer 2 years to learn how to beat Rafa on clay. Didn't help much at the French Open though. And that match against Rafa was their first match in 3.5 years. Rafa's game was probably completely differnt from when Andy destroyed him before. All I'm saying is let's see them play each other a few more times. I think if Andy plays either of them at the TMC, it will be very telling.

it wasnt fed who ran him off the court at indian wells. fed was no where near when dancevic beat him in a final of hard court tournament. ferru took him out in cincy and not federer. aging 35 year old shrimp by the name of santoro took him out in lyons, france not fed. he was not in the tournament.

who is he kidding anyway? secondly, he has been running. he ran from madrid, basel, and paris. 2 of these events are supposed to be required.

federer is just an excuse. he has failed to improve his game and while some of the others are catching up. now he has not just fed but a numbers of other players to worry about.

i hate to say it but roddick is making excuses. mahut had a match point against him in queens and should have won. he had no business losing to gasquet at wimby aftr being up by 2 sets to love.

if he cant win small tournaments with no fed around, how does he ever hope to win a slam. the short answer is that he does not expect to ever win another slam. i think he will drop out of top 10 in a few months.

Does that mean he didn't deserve the win? Was he just lucky to get through it? Did Federer deserve that win against Andy in Shanghai last year because Andy was leading 6-4 and 7-6 in that 2nd set? Was Federer lucky?

i am just saying that it looks like he is making excuses. fed is not his problem. his failure to improve his one dimensional game is the problem. even johhny mac has said this a number of times. this is the guy who was boasting about needing to only practice 1/2 hour a day before connors came on the scene.

well fed practices about 4 hours a day and he doesnt have a coach. i will be very happy if andy can win in shanghai and get a win or 2 over roger but with his game, there is little or no chance.

I just watched this video. It's highlights from the only win Andy has had over Federer, 2003 TMS Canada semis. Andy's forehands were massive and huge!! Since I've been following tennis (Wimbledon 05), the only time I've seen that was at the USO this year. Just look at the winners he hits at 0:08, 0:30, 0:47... in fact it's the whole 5 minute video. So obviously, his forehand has regressed. But look at his court position. He's at least his own height behind the baseline. But then I look at highlights from last year's Shanghai, he's got good court positioning, standing on the basline or no more than 3 feet behind it, even pushing Fed back sometimes. Then I look at the third set and he's playing his entire height behind the baseline... just getting pushed side to side and farther back. If played like he did at the USO more often, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

two good matches there. my only concern is this. A few times he has played his best tennis like this years USO and that 2003 Montreal you can say.. last years Shanghai for sure. but for all that he has only 1 win over federer. ONE. And he won it 7-6 in the third. Meaning it was a matter of two or three crucial points that gave him the match. 2003. Federer had just one slam at that point. That's a scary thought. And against Nadal this year in Indian Wells? I was really excited for that match and was hoping and very sure almost that Andy would win - not only had be been playing real well for some time with connors and s&v and what not, it was in America on hardcourts. and it was his one chance I think to reestablish himself as a contender for the top2 positions. He was I think already number 3 at that point? And he got pretty much swept aside by Nadal in a routine 6-4 6-4 or something like that. That's scary. Regardless of Nadal serving 81%, what happened to Andy's serves? And Nadal (as herc will surely tell you) isn't supposed to be that great of a returner. After that match I pretty much had to accept the fact that Nadal is a damn good player and his service games and his return games are more than sufficient to handle Andy. Amazingly enough, its after this match that my respect for Nadal started growing. I was upset Roddick lost though. And against Djokovic I really have to have them play a few more times to be able to determine anything. Djokovic has yet to prove some more about his consistency so its too soon, if Djokovic does play well though I think he's the kinda guy Andy'll have trouble against. His serves are big, his ground game is big his returns are decent - and thats all it pretty much takes to beat Andy. But yeah I did expect Andy to beat Djokovic there in Montreal too - he was coming of a victory over Isner I think and a pretty decent (and disappointing - all the more reason to do well) Wimbledon showing. So I am disappointed but I can appreciate him for what he is now and i'll let it go at that.

I just watched this video. It's highlights from the only win Andy has had over Federer, 2003 TMS Canada semis. Andy's forehands were massive and huge!! Since I've been following tennis (Wimbledon 05), the only time I've seen that was at the USO this year. Just look at the winners he hits at 0:08, 0:30, 0:47... in fact it's the whole 5 minute video. So obviously, his forehand has regressed. But look at his court position. He's at least his own height behind the baseline. But then I look at highlights from last year's Shanghai, he's got good court positioning, standing on the basline or no more than 3 feet behind it, even pushing Fed back sometimes. Then I look at the third set and he's playing his entire height behind the baseline... just getting pushed side to side and farther back. If played like he did at the USO more often, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

two good matches there. my only concern is this. A few times he has played his best tennis like this years USO and that 2003 Montreal you can say.. last years Shanghai for sure. but for all that he has only 1 win over federer. ONE. And he won it 7-6 in the third. Meaning it was a matter of two or three crucial points that gave him the match. 2003. Federer had just one slam at that point. That's a scary thought. And against Nadal this year in Indian Wells? I was really excited for that match and was hoping and very sure almost that Andy would win - not only had be been playing real well for some time with connors and s&v and what not, it was in America on hardcourts. and it was his one chance I think to reestablish himself as a contender for the top2 positions. He was I think already number 3 at that point? And he got pretty much swept aside by Nadal in a routine 6-4 6-4 or something like that. That's scary. Regardless of Nadal serving 81%, what happened to Andy's serves? And Nadal (as herc will surely tell you) isn't supposed to be that great of a returner. After that match I pretty much had to accept the fact that Nadal is a damn good player and his service games and his return games are more than sufficient to handle Andy. Amazingly enough, its after this match that my respect for Nadal started growing. I was upset Roddick lost though. And against Djokovic I really have to have them play a few more times to be able to determine anything. Djokovic has yet to prove some more about his consistency so its too soon, if Djokovic does play well though I think he's the kinda guy Andy'll have trouble against. His serves are big, his ground game is big his returns are decent - and thats all it pretty much takes to beat Andy. But yeah I did expect Andy to beat Djokovic there in Montreal too - he was coming of a victory over Isner I think and a pretty decent (and disappointing - all the more reason to do well) Wimbledon showing. So I am disappointed but I can appreciate him for what he is now and i'll let it go at that.

I disagree. Rafa is #1 in points won returning 1st serves and #2 in points won returning 2nd serves and return games won. If that's not a great returner, show me a better one.

I think Andy's main issue with playing Nadal is his patience. Watching highlights from IW makes me notice that. Andy just isn't a patient guy... in general!! James Blake said that you've got to be prepared to hit 3 or 4 winners in a row against Rafa to win a point because most likely, the 1st and 2nd are coming back to ya! It's not that Andy doesn't have the ability, he just can't do it. That just takes practice.

Let's not forget that all players have bad losses. Federer lost to Volandri. I mean come on, Volandri... in straights!! He lost to a top 60 Canas two weeks in a row! He was lucky to beat Rafa at Wimbledon. He got outclassed by Nalbandian two MS in a row.

Now let's look at Rafa. He's lost to Xavier Malisse. When's the last time he's won a match? Gonzo convincingly beat him at the AO, and he's been reduced to 4 games or less per match against Nalbandian.

Now Novak. He's lost to Giorgi Chantouria (okay, he retired, but it's still a loss ), a top 50 Clement, Victor Troicki, Nalbandian, and Santoro.

What am I babbling on about? i'm not exactly sure, but no one is unbeatable, and player's careers shouldn't be doomed because they lose to players they shouldn't. When you're a top 5 player, there's a better chance you're going to lose more often to lower ranked players than higher ranked players. It's just logical. In fact, Federer ALWAYS loses to lower ranked players. What's up with that?

Now lets look at the players who Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic all BEAT, while looking at who Roddick was able to beat by comparision, or more accurately how each did vs top players:

Federer's wins vs top players this year include- Djokovic at Australian Open, Roddick at Australian Open, Gonzalez at Australian Open, Djokovic in Dubai, Ferrer in Monte Carlo, Ferrer in Hamburg, Nadal in Hamburg, Davydenko at the French Open, Gasquet at Wimbledon, Nadal at Wimbledon, Roddick at U.S Open,Davydenko at U.S Open, Djokovic at U.S Open.

Nadal's wins vs top players this year include- Murray at Australian Open, Roddick at Pacific Life, Djokovic at Pacific Life, Federer at Monte Carlo, Ferrer at Barcelona, Djokovic at Rome, Davydenko at Rome, Gonzalez at Rome, Gonzalez at Hamburg, Djokovic at French Open, Federer at French Open, Djokovic at Wimbledon, Murray at Madrid

Djokovic's wins vs top players this year include- Ferrer at Pacific Life, Murray at Pacific Life, Nadal at Nasdaq, Murray at Nasdaq, Gasquet at Estoril, Roddick at Montreal, Nadal at Montreal, Federer at Montreal, Ferrer at U.S Open.

Roddick's wins vs top player this year include- Murray in Memphis, Ferrer in Nadaq.

Hmmm, interesting to compare the number of top guys Roddick has been able to beat compared to Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic. Now lets look at each players losses to top players:

Federer- Nadal at Monte Carlo, Nadal at French Open, Djokovic at Montreal, Nalbandian at Madrid, Nalbandian at Paris

Nadal- Gonzalez at Australian Open, Djokovic at Miami, Federer at Hamburg, Federer at Wimbledon, Djokovic at Montreal, Ferrer at U.S Open, Nalbandian at Madrid, Nalbandian at Paris

Djokovic- Federer at Australian Open, Federer at Dubai, Nadal at Pacific Life, Ferrer at Monte Carlo, Nadal at Rome, Nadal at French Open, Nadal at Wimbledon, Federer at U.S Open, Nalbandian at Madrid

Roddick- Federer at Australian Open, Murray at San Jose, Nadal at Pacific Life, Murray at Nasdaq, Gasquet at Wimbledon, Djokovic at Montreal, Ferrer at Cincinnati, Federer at U.S Open

So there you have it, Roddick almost never beats a top player and almost always loses when he comes up against a top player. Federer and Nadal beat many more top players then they lose to, Djokovic beats around the same number as he loses to, while Roddick loses to many more top players then he wins against. Roddick actually is pretty consistent beating players he is supposed to beat, obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part he is very consistent vs players outside the top group, but when he goes up against top players he has very little chance to win vs them. This proves that. Sharp contrast to Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic who are very capable of beating top players. Also Djokovic's win/losses vs top players is hurt by the fact he is good enough to get far enough on clay to take those losses to the top players, unlike Roddick who is hopeless on the clay, Djokovic's win/loss record vs top players actually is worsened by all those losses to Nadal or Ferrer on clay he took this year, while Roddick does not change at all despite having even less chance should he ever play a top player on clay then he does on other surfaces where he is still losing regularly to them when he comes up against them.

Djokovic has more losses. But seriosuly, Andy's year has been disappointing. I put him #1 on my list. This has been Djokovic's best year to date. He's ranked #3 and Andy's #5. Are these results a shock?

And regarding the match facts. Karlovic, Andy, Federer and Ljubicic are in the top 5 for almost all of the service statistics. Are they not the best servers??

Loveres of great tennis love to watch players like Nadal and Federer, when it comes to Roddick opinion seems to be hugely split amongst tennis fans, he may not be the most attractive player to watch, but theres no denying his competetiveness and pure desire to win. A lot of people will say his tennis has suffered as a result of his otther commitments, but I think the man is playing it smart in terms of his life, and you can see by his performances on court that he gives it his all.

While his head to head with Nadal and Djokovic might be poor (so is Federer's vs Nadal, but you wouldn't neccesarily bet against Federer at any othe rslam apart from the FO), theres no doubt that the man is a huge threat, as I've said before in another thread, he is pretty much unstoppable when it comes to the fast court slams (until he meets Federer that is), 3 final losses to the same guy - a few others in semi finals and quarter finals of slams to the same guy. He has a few other sporadic losses (i.e Gasquet and Murray) but the mere fact that he reached slam finals 3 years in a row shows what a great power he is, and what a great power he could be.

My comments on all of this: BGT, knowing how big of a fan you are of Roddick, I am impressed at your ability to discuss the points without getting defensive or being biased.......even while others rip Roddick. And, thanks for those Youtube clips!

I continue to be let down by Hercules' negative comments on the worlds best tennis players!

BTW, Dmast and anyone else who thinks Roddick can't volley at all, watch those Youtube clips and then try to talk that crap! And, that is against Fed!

Its as simple as this.................Roddick has done and is doing amazingly well for what skillz he has. He has been great for the game, done lots with his charity, and loves Davis Cup which is admirable. Anyone that can't see that is hopeless.

My comments on all of this: BGT, knowing how big of a fan you are of Roddick, I am impressed at your ability to discuss the points without getting defensive or being biased.......even while others rip Roddick. And, thanks for those Youtube clips!

I continue to be let down by Hercules' negative comments on the worlds best tennis players!

BTW, Dmast and anyone else who thinks Roddick can't volley at all, watch those Youtube clips and then try to talk that crap! And, that is against Fed!

Its as simple as this.................Roddick has done and is doing amazingly well for what skillz he has. He has been great for the game, done lots with his charity, and loves Davis Cup which is admirable. Anyone that can't see that is hopeless.

We've gone through this type of thing before. A few great volleys don't really make a great volleyer. Does your impression of my volleying skill revolve around the deft little angle volley I hit while we were playing doubles, or the volleys I dumped into the net, or pushed long?Of course your last paragraph is 100% true.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)